"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ “एक-सदèय” मामला रायपुर मɅ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR Įी पाथ[ सारथी चौधरȣ, ÛयाǓयक सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. No. 07/RPR/2026 (Arising out of ITA No.490/RPR/2025) Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2015-16 The Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai (C.G.) .......अपीलाथȸ / Appellant बनाम / V/s. Rama Agrawal 33A, I. E. Bhilai, S.O Industrial Estate, Durg-490 026 (C.G.) PAN: ACGPA8359N ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CA Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 20.03.2026 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 20.03.2026 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.07/RPR/2026 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Revenue arising out of impugned order of Tribunal passed in ITA No.490/RPR/2025 for assessment year 2015-16 u/s.254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 25.09.2025. 2. In the said impugned order, the legal contention that was raised by the assessee was that mandatory notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was never issued to the assessee before completion of assessment u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. That as emanating therein the Ld. Sr. DR had submitted a report from the jurisdictional A.O, wherein it was mentioned that since the return filed by the assessee was invalid, therefore, there was no occasion for issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee. Thereafter, the Tribunal had observed as per records, the assessee had duly filed return in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 03.08.2021, thereafter, the A.O had issued notices u/s.142(1) of the Act on three occasions viz. 15.11.2021, 18.11.2021 and 21.12.2021 and one show cause notice on 27.03.2022. In all these notices that were issued by the A.O, he had not mentioned anywhere that the return filed was invalid and because of such invalid return, he cannot issue notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal observed Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.07/RPR/2026 that though assessment was completed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, however, no notice has been issued u/s. 143(2) of the Act to the assessee and that notice u/s.143(2) of the Act was sine-qua-non for completion of assessment u/s.143(3)/144/147 of the Act. The Tribunal had relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Shaily Juneja Vs. ACIT, (2024) 167 taxmann.com 90 (Delhi), wherein it had been held that issuance of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act is mandatory in reassessment proceedings u/s.147 of the Act. The relevant observations of the Tribunal are extracted as follows: “10. Respectfully following the aforesaid decisions on the same parity of reasoning, I hold that the reassessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 without any service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee, is held to be invalid, arbitrary and bad in law, hence quashed. 11. Since the reassessment is quashed subsequently all the other proceedings becomes non-est as per law. The legal issue has been answered in favour of the assessee therefore the grounds on merits becomes academic only. 12. As per the aforesaid terms the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 3. I have heard the submissions of the parties herein and also carefully considered the contents in the miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue and therein, the contents are akin to contemplating for a review of the decision taken by the Tribunal which is therefore, not permissible within the ambit of Section 254(2) of the Act. Taking guidance from the Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.07/RPR/2026 judicial pronouncements viz. (i) T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC); (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC) and (iii) CIT Vs. Ramesh Electric & Trading Company reported as 203 ITR 497 (Bom.), it is held that the adjudication of the Tribunal is confined to rectification of the mistakes which are apparent from record and nothing more. Section 254(2) of the Act does not allow the Tribunal to review its own order, to revisit the facts on record, to allow for any verification of facts through long drawn process of arguments and counter arguments by the parties; what can only be rectified is an apparent mistake, if any, in its order and nothing further. 4. In the present case, the Tribunal had provided relief to the assessee in its own wisdom by holding that reassessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 without any service of notice u/s.143(2) of the Act to the assessee, was held to be invalid, arbitrary and bad in law, hence quashed. There is no mistake much less an apparent mistake in the order of the Tribunal. That the Revenue in the garb of filing the captioned miscellaneous application is only seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal which is not permissible and beyond the jurisdiction as envisaged u/s. 254(2) of the Act. Hence, I hold that the miscellaneous Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.07/RPR/2026 application preferred by the Revenue being devoid of any merits is dismissed. 5. In the result, miscellaneous application filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 20th day of March, 2026. Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ÛयाǓयक सदèय/JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर / Raipur; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 20th March, 2026. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ / The Appellant. 2. Ĥ×यथȸ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, “एक-सदèय” बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur Printed from counselvise.com "